Why I think people are opposed to pedophilic/intergenerational relationships.

1: Parents do not like to view offspring as sexual, leading to a false notion in people’s heads that children are asexual.

Admitting that your offspring is sexual feels like incest, which we may also subconsciously link to inbreeding, which is unhealthy, so to prevent this discomforting feeling of incestuousness, parents live in a fantasy world where their offspring is supposedly asexual.

You see this even when kids masturbate or have sex with other kids – they will sometimes come up with all kinds of reasons as to why the kid did it from music to video games to television being a horrific influence, complaining about child sexualization and blah blah blah, rather than to just consider the fact that the child is simply a sexual being, in and of itself, no manipulation from the outside world is even required.

Of course, when you convince yourself that the child is asexual, then it seems like a lot more sensible assumption to make that if the child is engaging in some kind of sexual behavior, especially with an adult (with another child it might be dismissed as ”see, they are both misguided, haha”), this MUST just be the result of the adult having used some kind of manipulation tactic on the child!

Can’t be any other way, children are fundamentally asexual after all.

It’s completely delusional, even with teens with even stronger sex drives they’ll sometimes act as if a 16 year old is being misled into thinking cock is candy or something, they just assume they know they only had sex because of some barely/poorly defined manipulation/”grooming”.

2: Jealousy – from old bitter females and younger males.

This I would say is especially so the case with adolescents rather than prepubescents, when it’s a younger female + older male relationship.

The older females are pissed off they’re not the center of attention anymore, the younger males are jealous competitors, they might just tell someone to press charges because they’re pissed off they’re not fucking that 13-17 year old pussy.

Here some feminists often like to interject that no, they did not enjoy the attention of older men/were not attracted to older men when they were younger.

Fine, but there are still reasons beyond that why it can be beneficial to you to be attractive to men even if you don’t want sex with them, clearly often times men will pay for your shit and let you get away with all sorts of behaviors because they want to fuck you, that is a benefit regardless of whether or not you are attracted to them, maybe you simply want the beauty back, look youthful and fresh again.

3: General disgust, disgust makes it hard to think rationally.

Some of it might also just be general disgust, different sexual preferences are sometimes shocking//nauseating/scary.

And disgust makes it hard to think rationally, just like if I told an arachnophobic that there are two big spiders, one is venomous, the other one is not, well, they’re still going to be scared of both of them, doesn’t matter how one is not venomous.

Likewise people see one pedophile do something bad, and they already feel completely disgusted by pedophilia, so now they think that’s all pedophiles – happens.

4: Social mimicry, as with anything else.

For these aforementioned reasons people integrate the social norm/idea that pedophiles/hebephiles/ephebophiles are evil into society, and as we know, neurologically normal humans, non-autistics simply have a tendency to automatically copy social behaviors without questioning them that much:

On each of five trials, each child was asked to watch carefully as a demonstrator showed how to retrieve a toy from a box or build a simple object. Importantly, each demonstration included two necessary actions (e.g. unclipping and removing the box lid) and one unnecessary action (e.g. tapping the top of the box twice).
The box was then reset behind a screen and handed to the child, who was instructed to “get or make the toy as fast as you can.” They were not specifically told to copy the behavior they’d just seen.
Investigators discovered almost all of the children successfully reached the goal of getting or making the toy, but typically developing children were much more likely to include the unnecessary step as they did so, a behavior known as overimitation.
Those children copied 43 to 57 percent of the unnecessary actions, compared to 22 percent in the children with autism. That’s despite the fact that the children correctly identified the tapping action as “silly,” not “sensible.”
https://psychcentral.com/news/2013/04/09/autistic-kids-tend-to-imitate-efficiently-not-socially#2

So what I’m saying is for some it is just a mindless process of adopting whatever social norms are present in their environment as well, for the aforementioned reasons the norms were likely established, and now new children born into society simply internalize these views without questioning it at all like most neurotypical homo sapiens.

Just like they are also more likely to soak up religious indoctrination, if it’s a christian country they will think there’s gotta be some legitimacy to christianity, if it’s a muslim country they will think there’s gotta be some legitimacy to islam. If everyone around them eats pigs they’ll eat pigs, if everyone around them eats dogs they eat dogs.

Age of consent is another one of these belief systems that people just kind of mindlessly adopt, ”this is the thing I have to believe to be part of this society, so I’ll believe it, the holy number is definitely number 17, because that’s the number where I live, I don’t recommend sex under 17 because then society will be against you, and that is bad.”

Obviously most neurotypicals don’t even think that, it is just an automatic process is what I’m saying, they gravitate towards the behavior that makes them fit in with the social group.

”You’re not entitled to sex, incel.”

”You’re not entitled to sex, deal with it.” is a common response feminists have when they are confronted with the problem of male sexlessness, sometimes referred to as involuntary celibacy, hence the word in(voluntary)cel(ibate).

Right away, I already think this is rather presumptious. Who said someone is entitled? I’m not denying there are of course incels who say they are entitled to sex no matter what, but to immediately accuse someone of entitlement simply because they are stating their dissatisfaction with a circumstance is the result of a flawed thought process.

”I’m sad I don’t have friends.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A HOLD A GUN TO PEOPLE’S HEADS AND FORCE THEM TO BE YOUR FRIENDS???

”I’m sad my mother died.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD A GUN TO RANDOM WOMEN’S HEADS AND FORCE THEM TO PRETEND TO BE YOUR MOMMY???

”I’m a cripple and I always wanted to be an athlete with real legs, this makes me sad.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CUT EVERYONE’S LEGS OFF AND ATTACH THEM TO YOURSELF??? PIECE OF SHIT SCUM!!!

This is absurd, who said that if you voice your dissatisfaction as a way of relieving yourself, you must necessarily believe to be entitled to something?

Is this how to sensibly react to someone’s suffering? If someone is dissatisfied with x circumstance, we should immediately accuse them of being entitled pricks? Somehow ”I wanted to have lots of sex but I can’t because I’m ugly and/or socially disabled in some way” earns this type of scorn response in particular.

Likewise, if it is supposed to be advice, it is flawed – that also seems to be the perception of many of these ignorant feminists, that the suffering is caused by your sense of entitlement, rather than something deeper. So you just get rid of that sense of entitlement somehow and the problem is solved in their deluded minds.

It is a common form of gaslighting abuse feminists engage in towards sexually unsuccessful men, they deny the suffering caused by phenomena easily explained by evolution, and pretend that is is all just coming from some patriarchy rape culture conspiracy against them.

I think that not having sex causes men suffering because evolution simply favors what results in survival, so it made it so that men experience suffering when they don’t release their seed in a warm wet hole, because that is one of many ways to encourage that they will reproduce – to pretend that the suffering is caused just by some kind of social construct giving men a sense of entitlement is gaslighting abuse.

”You dumb incels only want sex because you see sex on the evil rape culture television everywhere, it’s not like sex is used in commercials because men are already naturally interested in sex, NO, men are only interested in sex because they have been indoctrinated by the evil rape culture television!”

Another crucial aspect to bring up here is the lie that they are only saying incels are not entitled to sex and their hypocrisy.

The lie (or delusion) is that many of these feminists are supposedly just saying you cannot take sex forcefully, i.e ”you’re not entitled to rape” pretty much – but that is not all they are saying.

Guess who the most incel-hating cunts are? The same ones who are also in principle opposed to prostitution, pornography or sex dolls.

So it is not just ”you can’t take sex forcefully”, it is also:

”Even if a woman agrees to let you stick it in for a certain price, it still isn’t ok because she wants money and not sex, so the sex is unwanted and unwanted sex is rape, so basically all work is slavery because the baker is only baking bread for money, not because they want to bake bread, so it is unwanted work, which is slavery, wah wah wah, I just want you to remain sexless for the rest of your life and suffer horrifically!!!”

and it is also:

”But pornography COULD be abusive, sometimes women are abused in that industry, so maybe you are watching a video in which someone was abused for free without contributing to the abuse because you watched it for free and they don’t even know you exist, so that must be banned, although even real life violence and gore videos of decapitations are perfectly legal if you’re only watching them for free, despite containing DEFINITE violence! We only care about censoring sex! Animated child porn=wrong because it’s child abuse but horror movie=acceptable!”

and it might also be:

”But what if you get used to fucking a sex doll and then your male pea brain can’t distinguish between the sex doll and a real woman anymore, so you go out and start sexually assaulting women because you think they’re sex dolls? Also, how old is your sex doll??? OMG I’m so disgusted right now, your sex doll looks like she’s still underage! Fucking child rapist you deserve to be castrated!!!!!!!!!!!!”

So these people have no right to claim it is just about incels not being allowed to force someone to have sex with them, they want in fact all sexual outlets to be banned.

Then their hypocrisy – sometimes they seem to think females are entitled to male attention but not the other way around.

If you tell them you can’t be friends with a girl anymore because it is tormenting to have her tits dangled in front of you and not being able to touch, they will accuse you of acting entitled for not being able to bear the friendship anymore, as if somehow the female in that situation is entitled to a male friend.

Another one would be you find out that your wife did some sex act you’re interested in (deepthroat, anal, fisting, etc) with someone in the past when she was still young and fresh, but not with you, so you divorce her to avoid that frustration/suffering of being the settled for second choice. Again, many here will say this is the man acting entitled, but why is the wife entitled to a marriage?

If you’re going with the ”you’re entitled to nothing in this life! NOTHING!” standard, why are women entitled to attention from men on the other hand? It goes both ways.

On circumcision/genital mutilation.

I think circumcision generally falls under what we can refer to as unnecessary harm, I don’t support it.

1 – It’s painful in the moment or afterwards.

Either while you’re being circumcised if it’s done by some primitive religious moron without anesthesia, or definitely afterwards.

Perhaps if you’re young enough while it happens, you won’t remember it later, but I fail to see how that is supposed to be a justification. Let’s say I could torture someone for hours, but then give them a hypothetical pill that will make them forget all of it.

The fact that the torture happened in the moment while they were being tortured is bad enough, it doesn’t matter if they remember or forget it.

2 – It can also cause long term suffering by decreasing your ability to obtain sexual relief/satisfaction.

Here people will of course argue back and forth about if circumcision has any effect on your sexual pleasure or not. Some will claim yes it decreased their ability to feel pleasure (I am in that category), some might even say it increased their ability to feel pleasure to get cut because they had some kind of problem with their tight foreskin beforehand and just didn’t use all options to try to retract them, whatever it may be.

But just looking at the most obvious facts, it seems non-sensical to me to claim it has no decreasing effect. Yes, you are cutting skin that contains sensitive nerves off of your dick (it’d be weird if that in itself didn’t take any feelings away), and once that is done, your glans will no longer be constantly protected by anything wrapped around it, so it’s free to rub against your pants all the time, prone to the process of keratinization.

Forcing an internal organ to be an external organ, so to speak. Would it not be reasonable to say that if instead of walking on your feet, you learned to walk on your hands, your hands would become kind of desensitized over time? I play guitar, so the fingers that I put on the strings become less sensitive over time, they’re constantly exposed to pressure.

If you constantly expose something and it is not protected, it generally tends to become less sensitive to fine touch, yes. Does that take some kind of Einstein genius to come up with that theory?

3 – Benefits seem little to non-existent to make up for the harm/loss.

Hygiene? Do you live in a third world shithole with no access to soap? I doubt it anyway though, I know just from my personal experience in the past that when I sweat and jizzed, and I have no protective skin around my glans to stop lints and dirt from getting stuck in and glued to my glans, it does in fact get stuck in and glue to my glans. How exactly is that more hygienic?

But whatever, yes, wash yourself.

Less likely to get certain STDs? Contraception, again, not impossible, no need to resort to such drastic measures when it can be solved more comfortably.

Penile cancer? Almost no one gets penile cancer, you can also take other measures not to get cancer like living a healthy lifestyle/not smoking, and wouldn’t that also justify cutting all girls breasts off because then they can never get cancer in them? Breast cancer is certainly more likely than cancer in your genitals, penile cancer is extremely rare.

How about you just ask them what they want if it’s not absolutely necessary? Same for your tonsils even, I don’t think it would have as negative of an effect on someone as being circumcised or having breasts cut off, but still, why do it if it’s completely unnecessary in that moment?

Yes, if you cut x part of your body off, that part cannot become infected or riddled with cancer anymore…so therefore cut it all off?

Phimosis? This is the only one that is kind of more controversial, but it’s not really unsolvable either, there are specific creams and stretching exercises to retract your foreskin without having to cut it, and you can also only get partially circumcised and not tightly if nothing else helps.

Overall I think this is a barbaric and backward ritual, I don’t think it’s unfair or inconsiderate or anything to criticize the ones doing it, the reasons people give for it are frequently pathetically shallow.

Often it’s supported by religious morons who think children should be property, ”parents have a right to choose for children” – maybe if it’s harmless and/or necessary, but not when you’re inflicting unnecessary harm/pain/suffering on them like strapping them to a table and cutting their skin off, or beating them with a hammer, or sticking needles in them, etc based on thinking that invisible creatures exist and command you to do so.

Religion should never be an argument here, that’s just saying you live in a fantasy world and believe in invisible creatures for which you have no evidence, so that’s why you inflicting potentially intense harm/pain/suffering on others is justified, the easter bunny said I have to shove my fist in an infant’s vagina, so it’s fine basically.

Same goes for a parent’s petty aesthetic preferences, who cares what you think looks pretty? Should you also be allowed to cut up your daughter’s vagina or breasts to make them look more pleasant to your liking?

Then we have the feminist morons that are completely apathetic to any plight men face and just state that female genital mutilation is worse than male genital mutilation. It depends on how you do it is simply the answer here, so this is just wrong to categorically state FGM is worse than MGM, by default, always.

You can cut off the skin around the clitoris, this is more similar to cutting foreskin off. Some primitive cultures cut the entire vagina open, yes, but some primitive cultures also cut the entire dick open and stick their dicks in the cut open dick, it’s a matter of how you’re mutilating them.

It doesn’t matter though, I could also say ”look, feminists, anal rape is worse than sexual harassment, therefore sexual harassment isn’t a big deal, so shut the fuck up”. This is fallacy of relative privation, A and B are both bad, but B is worse than A, so therefore we’re going to pretend A is now good. Having two arms amputated is worse than only one arm, so therefore having one arm amputated somehow isn’t a big deal? That’s just non-sense.

And I’m sure you can find more obscure reasons why people do it, but these tend to be the common sayings/standards. In conclusion, I see no point in the ritual/practice.

Learning by association – one can have false intuitions about pleasure and harm.

The experience machine is a thought experiment meant to demonstrate that somehow, sentient organisms care about other things except escaping pain/maximizing pleasure, I believe this is fundamentally impossible.

As in, there’s a machine you can get into, and it will create greater pleasure than you get from living your current life with your family, friends, maybe partner, etc, and they would also be well taken care of without you, so it’s no big deal, just get in there and feel even better.

If we chase pleasure, why wouldn’t everyone get into that machine?

I think the answer is simple – because they’re delusional and therefore don’t actually believe the experience machine will give them more pleasure, so I don’t see how this experiment threatens the value theory of hedonism.

Humans learn by association, unless you are very systematic perhaps like some autistic people are, you likely don’t analyze the details of every situation as to what causes more or less suffering, you make rough associations between things, and I believe this explains fixation on deontology and virtue ethics over utilitarianism.

John saw his mom get raped by a guy with a red hat and leather jacket as a child, now he gets a panic attack whenever he sees a guy with a red hat and leather jacket in public because in his mind red hat and leather jacket=rape.

You see lying generally results in harm, so therefore you conclude that lying must always result in harm and tell the nazis the jews are in your basement. See, you did a good job there in your mind, you prevented lying so you prevented harm.

You see that ending human life generally results in harm, so therefore you conclude that ending human life must always result in harm and become a pro-lifer who cares about the non-existent welfare of non-conscious fertilized eggs and support anti-euthanasia laws to make sure that everyone suffers as much as possible from being forced to live and can’t escape.

One can have false intuitions/delusions about what will efficiently reduce suffering/maximize pleasure, the deluded religious terrorist thinks he must bomb the gay pride parade to stop these evil faggots from infesting society with AIDS. See, I’m saving all of you from going to hell by stopping these evil pro-AIDS propagandists from forcing you to have unprotected anal sex, this means we’ll all go to heaven later on, so it is the lesser of two evils.

The answer for the experience machine is no different – we make illogical associations.

You simply don’t associate the experience machine with pleasure, you associate the things you already have in your life with pleasure, like your girlfriend’s pussy or whatever it may be.

And then I come along and say see, I have a fancy experience machine here in my basement, you just have to get into it, and then you’re going to feel even more pleasure jizzing all over yourself all day than when you jizz in your girlfriend’s pussy – watching two hairy fat old men buttfucking all day, your life is going to be perfect.

Do you believe me?

Do you trust me?

Just get in there.

It sounds unrealistic, many simply would not believe me, and that’s the problem.

This doesn’t prove they’re not after more pleasure, this just proves that they don’t believe they will actually get more pleasure from getting into the experience machine.

I think the same reasoning can also explain why people are scared of death, reject negative utilitarian and antinatalist ideas of stopping procreation to stop suffering and don’t accept the epicurean view, i.e death isn’t a big deal because if you’re dead, you don’t notice that you’re dead, so it won’t be a big deal for you.

If someone doesn’t actually conceptualize non-existence as non-existence, but simply as a second existence without all the pleasures one could have in it, then what they are actually picturing is not non-existence but a maximal state of suffering, i.e zero pleasure.

In life, not having pleasures means to suffer.

You don’t eat, you hunger.

You don’t drink, you thirst.

You don’t shit, you constipate.

You don’t breathe, you suffocate.

You don’t jerk off, you get tense and frustrated.

You don’t socialize, you get lonely.

You don’t maximize your pleasure, you start to suffer. But this is only when you exist, not when you don’t exist.

And I find it questionable if people actually even comprehend that, we have a hard time picturing not existing, so what we might end up imagining is not nothingness but simply an existence where you are deprived of all goods, floating around as a disgruntled ghost missing out on all the earthly pleasures you could have had, had you stayed alive.

Pro-lifers and pro-natalists somewhat reveal this thought process all the time when they ridicule the antinatalist’s risk-aversion, they say along the lines of:

”Ah, so we shouldn’t breed children so we don’t risk their suffering, but that’s idiotic, because we gotta take risks in life all the time, life without risk would just be boring! You get in the car, you might get into an accident. You sit in the sun, you might get skin cancer.”

Yes, in life. If you’re actually going to live life and not take any risks in it, what results is a life of boredom, which is suffering, which repels you, so you don’t accept such a life and take some amount of risk, if you avoided driving altogether, you’d suffer from not being able to move effectively through society anymore.

You might be imagining the downsides of not taking any risks in life, which is crushing boredom, and then project this onto non-existence, but non-existence is a different ”scenario” altogether in which absolutely no one is experiencing any level of boredom from not having any risks taken on their behalf, so then in that case, there is no problem, the problem is you delusionally picturing non-existence as a second existence filled with the suffering of boredom.

So just like not getting into the experience machine doesn’t prove you’re not after more pleasure, someone objecting to non-existence doesn’t prove they’re not trying to avoid pain, one can simply have misguided intuitions about still continuing to live in a suffering state after one died like ”But what if death isn’t the end and what comes after is even worse??? How do I know that if I smash my computer (brain) with a sledgehammer, the data (consciousness) isn’t still somehow invisibly floating around in the air?”.

Dying and death are also close to each other, though different, and the dying process is often painful and scary for us, so of course, if we associate death with that, we become irrationally scared of death, which is just a harmless ”state” of non-existence though, and we may then make the connection that what happened before our birth was also non-existence, so we become just as scared of that as of the non-existence after we died, non-existence is scary.

As in, you equate painful dying with death itself, and you equate death (non-existence) with not being born (non-existence), so you end up delusionally imagining that you need to be born in order to avoid the horrible pains of dying, which is just that – delusional, if anything not being born is the only thing rescuing from the process of decaying and dying.

I don’t think it’s possible for any other value theory to be true, everything is about sensation.

If you care about doing anything, it is because you believe it will reduce suffering/maximize pleasure in others or in yourself.

Even if a deontologist still wouldn’t lie in a case where the nazis are ringing on their door and ask them if the jews are in their basement, all that proves is that lying is making this deontologist suffer so intensely that they abstain from it in order to avoid suffering. So in that sense, I don’t even think there is a real deontologist.

You’re authoritarian, because you believe an authoritarian approach reduces suffering in the world, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t, you just personally get off on domination and power play stuff.

You’re libertarian, because you believe a libertarian approach reduces suffering in the world, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t, you just personally get off on being as free as possible.

You’re religious because you’re deluded and really believe heaven and hell exist, or you at least think that having this view integrated into society will give people a morality to follow and thus reduce suffering, or even if you’re shown evidence it doesn’t lead to that, you just personally get off on living this fairytale.

So on and so forth. If you know that following a given morality does not efficiently reduce suffering in the world, what reason could there possibly be for you still following it except that it reduces suffering in you to follow it? I don’t think there is any, everything’s about sensation.

Misguided labellings of things as good and bad/intrinsic vs. instrumental good and bad.

A short list of (I believe) misguided reasons why humans label certain things good and bad.

”Pain and suffering can be good, vaccination is painful but it’s good, working out can be stressful but it’s good, what about masochists? They like pain.”

So then suffering is only good because it helps you to avoid even more of it, which shows that it is not good, because you’re only tolerating to avoid even more of it.

Dying of a painful disease the vaccination protects you against=suffering.

Being weak and unhealthy which the workout protects you against=suffering.

Feeling sexual frustration if you don’t insert a nail into your urethra=suffering.

Suffering can only be a means to avoid to more of it, never the end goal, even the masochist is just inflicting the suffering onto themselves in an effort to avoid another.

Only pleasure but no suffering would get boring? Well, then it’s not pleasure anymore, boredom is obviously suffering.

”Little bit of childhood bullying can be good, makes you tougher, so then you’re able to deal with bullies later on in life.”

So then bullying and harassment is not good, the only reason why you’re saying it’s good is because later on there will also be bullying that you will have to learn to protect yourself against by being bullied earlier on. If bullying did no longer exist, then this would not be a necessity, so you failed to prove that bullying is good for the reason you stated.

”Selfishness can be good, cause otherwise, who’s going to look after you and take care of you if not you yourself?

The reason why no one would take care of you if you were not selfish is exactly because they are selfish, so then selfishness isn’t good, you’re only arguing that selfishness is good because it protects you against the selfishness of others.

It would be better if they derived pleasure from helping others, which of course is deep down also a selfish motivation, you could argue every action is ultimately selfish (you soothe your guilty conscience even when jumping on a grenade), but that’s a different topic, I’m using the definition of selfishness where it simply implies that you don’t derive your satisfaction from helping others.

”Empathy can be bad because it makes you vulnerable to being taken advantage of.”

Taken advantage of by whom? Right, the UN-empathetic, so if they had more empathy, would it not be good as it would prevent them from taking advantage of you?

”You gotta teach kids how to obey authority instead of questioning everything, cause otherwise they’re not gonna have a good time later on if they’re gonna be defiant all the time and question their boss or the police officer.”

And could it maybe be the case that the reason why their boss or the police officer later on will be a totalitarian piece of shit who expects people to bow to their authority without questioning is because they themselves have been raised in a culture that praises blind obedience to authority without questioning?

Could that not be part of the problem? Maybe if the police officer hadn’t been raised by some ”because I said so!” asshole, he wouldn’t be such a ”because I said so!” asshole either.

”Thinking and ruminating about negative/painful happenings in the world is bad cause it makes you depressed and you won’t be able to do anything about it.”

But often the very fact that people have the ability to turn their brains off and ignore reality is what led to the negative/painful event in the first place.

Let’s say I live in Nazi Germany and feel distressed about all the jews being gassed, I cannot blend the horror of what is happening out from my conscious perception into my subconscious perception.

Imagine everyone felt like this about it – then they wouldn’t be able to support the holocaust in the first place, but it is exactly the fact that the nazis are capable of rationalizing and pretending that jews are inanimate objects which makes it possible for them to do what they do.

If they were all incapable of doing this in the first place, the painful event would not be taking place. So why would the capacity for distraction aiding you to blend out that the holocaust is happening be a good thing?

Giving your victim the option to commit suicide doesn’t justify their victimization.

The general argument for sentiocentric (all sentient life) antinatalism is that suffering is bad, by creating life we cause a certain amount of suffering in all cases, we may also cause pleasure/relief, but you will not miss any of that pleasure/relief if you are never created in the first place, there is no unborn purgatory where anyone is trapped, suffering from a lack of pleasure.

Is the absence of pleasure in and of itself a problem? Think of a planet like mars, there’s no pleasure whatsoever going on there, but there’s also absolutely no suffering from a lack of it going on there, so I fail to see how it could be a legitimate problem.

Or similarly, imagine we had two planets, one filled with tormented, dissatisfied aliens living a life of abject misery, but the other one empty of conscious life. You could either A. Choose to give the miserable ones the resources needed to become satisfied or B. Create a higher number of happy aliens and put them on the empty planet.

I think the absence of pleasure is only a problem in so far as it causes suffering, once you’re here, you have a constant deprivation/desire problem that needs to be mended, fire could be used as a metaphor. By procreating, we give someone the problem of now having to constantly chase pleasure in order to avoid being subjected to suffering (eat or get hungry, drink or thirst, shit or constipate), some desire fires are temporarily extinguished while others are not.

If you wouldn’t accept the idea that a fireman did good by setting people’s houses on fire and extinguishing only some of them, why would you think creating desire and fulfilling only some of it is good? All our lives, we’re trying to suffer as little as possible, when the only way to truly avoid suffering is to not come into life in the first place.

So a question that is common in discussions about this topic is:

”If life is so bad, why don’t you just kill yourself immediately?”

Often implying that there’s some kind of hypocrisy on part of the ones opposing life creation.

And the proper answer to that would be that if everyone who comes to these conclusions just commits suicide, there would be no one to talk about it, simple.

If you are thrown in a war and you are staunchly anti-war, it isn’t necessarily clear that the best move is to shoot yourself in the head, maybe you can convince other soldiers that the war is bad and minimize cruelty along the way, stop them from inflicting rape/torture here and there, maybe you can go home again and write a book about why you disagree with the war you were thrown in, maybe other soldiers can even do the same thing, so on and so forth.

It isn’t necessarily clear that if you disagree with x, you would necessarily free yourself from x immediately, because perhaps by staying in x you have a chance to reduce x, another example would be let’s say I wanted to convince everyone to live in a forest with me without technology.

Perhaps buying a computer and phone and using said technology to argue that point would ultimately further my goal of getting more people to give up technology and live in the forest with me, but then ultimately we’d abandon technology.

(Sentiocentric) antinatalism is against all life propagating, that problem is not stopped by just ending one life. It ends that particular suffering and all potential future suffering, yes, but not all the potential future suffering of all other organisms, so it’s not a solution.

But there’s also another important aspect to this, which is that giving someone the option to kill themselves doesn’t justify imposing harm on them in the first place.

It’s often said with this implication that as long as we all have the option to opt out, that somehow makes life creation a fair game, because you can just opt out at any point.

”Doesn’t matter if some people have a torturous life, there are also many happy lives, and the ones that don’t like it can just kill themselves, fair deal, you can always opt out at any time, so don’t complain!”

The problem with this is that once somebody is planning to commit suicide, they have already been harmed, so unless you believe that it is justifiable to harm someone because they have the option to later on end that harm by committing suicide, you are being logically inconsistent in using this justification for breeding.

I didn’t know I was going to put you in extreme debt by taking your money to the gambling house and losing everything. If you don’t like it, you can kill yourself.

I didn’t know she didn’t want surprise anal sex, if this slut is now traumatized, she can just commit suicide, so what’s the big deal? Some like surprise anal sex.

I drove over your legs when I was drunk and now you’re a cripple, but so what? If you really don’t like it, you can always end it, life is not supposed to be fair.

If it were only bad to harm someone if you deny them the option to commit suicide, then it should not be possible to prosecute a rapist who locked a girl into his basement and raped her every day, as long as he also threw her a rope to hang herself with.

”But your honor, my client gave the girl in his basement a rope to commit suicide with, she didn’t do it, so that proves that she secretly enjoyed getting raped, it was consensual for sure. What’s the objection here?’

”Forcing others to suck your dick at gunpoint is fine because they can just choose to die if they really don’t want to, free the offender!”

”It’s a fair deal, I lock you in my basement and rape you, and if you really don’t like it, you can kill yourself, I put a rope in your room.”

Here many procreation supporters will say that this is an unfair example because you know fully well that people don’t like being abducted into basements and raped, but with creating life it is not as clear that the person will have a horrible experience.

But that’s irrelevant if their excuse for it is that if severe harm takes place, the victim can commit suicide, if harm is justified on the basis that the victim can still commit suicide if they don’t like it, then this point applies.

Furthermore, it of course also exposes another of their double standards, ”you don’t know the outcome beforehand, so that justifies breeding” – so taking a risk like this at someone else’s expense is fine as long as you don’t know the outcome? Isn’t that exactly what we think makes it wrong in almost all other cases? I went to the casino with your money, but that is perfectly fine, because I didn’t know that I was about to lose all of it, it’s only wrong to gamble with someone else’s money if you know the outcome is that you’ll lose, if you don’t know the outcome, it’s fine.

Another problem on top of this is that the ones who are making this brilliant ”you can always kill yourself after we already harmed you” point is that they are also frequently exactly the ones opposing the right to die.

Pro-life ideology/viviocentrism often times doesn’t stop at just being perfectly fine with the reckless creation of consciousness and suffering, many of these pro-lifers don’t want the victim to be able to leave life either after having been severely harmed already, which they base usually on entirely circular reasoning, as in ”you are irrational if you want to leave life, and you want to leave life because you are irrational” – A because B, B because A.

In many places althroughout history and to this day, you can be arrested if someone suspects you are about to commit suicide.

A suicidal person must always think that the game of working to fulfill your needs/wants/desires is worth it even when there are little to no prospects of doing so, you can’t just realize that your needs/wants/desires not being fulfilled wouldn’t be a problem anymore if you’re dead, because you won’t have them anymore so once the desire wound is gone the fulfillment bandaid loses its value, no, we have to re-addict you to life and force you to think that not fulfilling a non-existent need/want/desire is a big problem – stay addicted.

So let’s go back to the rapist metaphor.

It’s not like this rapist locks you in his basement with a rope you could potentially use to kill yourself, you also have to do it when he’s not home, otherwise, he has a little door in his rape dungeon he’ll lock you behind, and then you won’t be released again until you admit how irrational you are for rejecting his cock, his gift to you.

You must admit you don’t want his cock because you’re irrational and you’re irrational because you don’t want his cock (A because B, B because A), but you promise to worship his cock from now on, you admit you are diseased.

And of course, you see that some of his victims also don’t have the same fair chance as others to kill themselves because he amputated them (an analogy to people who are in a position where they have a hard time killing themselves on their own and aren’t being granted the right to assisted suicide), so they can’t just pick up a rope.

They have to plead with him to help them commit suicide, but often he decides that they must still stay here to worship his cock (just like the absolute pro-life religious nutjobs will force someone to live until the end because anything else goes against their idiotic delusional religious beliefs), maybe they’ll get some better painkillers and that’s it.

So this whole argument that ”they can just kill themselves” has lots of problems as we can see.

Antinatalists killing themselves doesn’t solve the overall problem of suffering, even here we can make an analogy to the rape dungeon. If one somehow manages to escape the rape dungeon but comes back to it in order to save the other victims from the rapist, would you say the rapist is right to conclude that this means you secretly want to live in his rape dungeon and are just denying it, otherwise you wouldn’t be coming back to it?

Giving your victim the option to commit suicide doesn’t justify imposing the harm on them, otherwise I might as well also start drunk driving over people’s legs to gambling houses where I lose the money of people I stole from, and then when I lose I angrily rape a bitch, but that’s all good because if they don’t like it they can just jump off a building together.

Some victims are not even in a position where they can easily kill themselves and the most insane pro-lifers still aren’t for allowing them to exit, they wouldn’t even allow a paralyzed patient to die so what’s their point anyway?

In conclusion, the best way to prevent a problem is still to not make it, it’s better if someone never ends up in a position where they have to kill themselves to escape suffering in the first place, and while you are also abstaining from creating happy future people, you have to keep in mind that they are not trapped in some kind of pre-birth deprivation chamber, unborn purgatory where they are horrifically tormented over not receiving life’s pleasures.

”We have to draw a line somewhere.”

A common argument in the debate about sex between minors and adults is that we just have to draw a line somewhere. Even if we’re being intellectually honest enough to admit that youngsters sometimes want to have sex with someone over the age of consent, it’s still wrong, because it opens the door to the chance of abuse, so we just have to draw a line somewhere, like 16, 17, 18 and treat everyone who had sex with a person under that age as a rapist, even if they’re not, to deter real rapists who would rape people under those ages.

The first problem that should be easy to see with this type of argument is that it can literally be applied to tons of other things that society is not making a big deal out of, so why exactly should we apply this disproportionate amount of worry to sex?

Example 1: Children are allowed to ride bicycles. This carries a certain risk of danger, because it opens the door to parents forcing children to ride their bicycles to school because they’re too lazy to drive, although these children are not yet competent and smart enough to navigate traffic.

Some of these children will get into car accidents and be crippled for life. So what is the solution here, kill everyone who gives a child a bicycle? Does that sound sensible?

Example 2: Young girls are allowed to use make up, the use of beauty products amongst young girls is socially acceptable. This carries a risk of danger, because it opens the door to narcissistic parents manipulating and forcing young girls to partake in beauty contests that they don’t want to partake in, damaging to their self-esteem, causing them eating disorders.

So what is the solution, what should I do whenever I see a young girl wearing make up? Assume that everyone who lets a little girl wear make up is an abuser, beat the shit out of her father?

Example 3: Children are allowed to hear about religion and spirituality. This carries a certain risk of danger, because it opens the door to terrorist organizations trying to lure children into joining a terrorist group like ISIS.

So what is the solution, shoot every more or less harmless religious person taking a willing child to church to sing in a choir, because some ISIS terrorist uses the freedom to talk about religion to try to indoctrinate children?

The problem is the same in all these situations.

Yes, sometimes, a freedom is abused to do something bad, but this doesn’t mean it always happens, so it’s not a clear harm in all cases, so it’s unfair to subject the ones who are innocent to consequences that are supposed to protect against harm causers.

Some children also willingly ride a bicycle, some little girls also willingly wear make up, some children also willingly go to a church, and although I think religion is garbage and generally does more harm than good, I still don’t think a peaceful religious person taking a willing child to church should be treated the same way as an ISIS terrorist to uphold some kind of principle of absolute caution, it’s simply not the same.

Ultimately, I see sex between children/minors and adults as similar of a topic to drug use, prostitution, gun use, etc. It’s something that needs to be regulated in certain ways, but it shouldn’t be banned.

It’s not a red-light, absolutely harmful activity. Sometimes it has a higher chance of resulting in harm, but it’s unfair to say that it always results in harm, like torturing and/or raping someone.

Manipulating, blackmailing and forcing others, including children obviously should be illegal, unless someone can name a good reason why they had to do it to prevent a greater harm, like self defense for instance, or giving a child or intellectually incompetent adult a vaccination that they need to not contract a painful disease.

Forcing a minor to have sex can still be perfectly illegal regardless of strictly adhering to a certain age of consent, and similarly this should be more taken into consideration when it comes to those over the age of consent as well, e.g. in reality it’s worse to drug and then fuck an 18 year old than to have consensual sex with a 14 year old, but there are some sexists who would want to kill everyone for fucking their 14 year old sister and then being perfectly fine with manipulating/pressuring a hot 18 year old girl into having sex in some way.

That is why close-in-age exceptions are also still an unfair deal, you’re still persecuting an adult for having sex with a willing minor, and you might be less likely to detect abuse between two children because they’re both under 18 or 16 or 14, so it must be fine.

Which isn’t true, forcing someone to have sex is the problem, not sex at any particular given age, there’s nothing that says an 11 year old can’t voluntarily have sex with a 19 year old, but on the other get abused by a 12 year old in their family.

This reasoning can also be applied to everything else, you shouldn’t be allowed to force the child to ride a bicycle when they’re too incompetent to ride it, or a little girl to wear make up, or a child to (non-sexually) hug you just because you feel entitled to it either – all I’m saying is that same standard should be applied to sexuality ultimately.

Then, there are some other risks in practice that might arise, same as with other somewhat risky, but not intrinsically harmful activities like drug use or prostitution, or even just riding a bicycle.

STDs and pregnancy could potentially happen, so children need to receive sex education. If it’s possible that a child can learn traffic rules, how to navigate the road, then I really don’t see why it should be so complicated to teach a child or a mentally retarded person how to use contraception, it is not much more difficult – and again, manipulation, blackmail, force from abusers who want to pressure someone into not having safe sex can be illegal regardless of age of consent, that would still fall under rape/molestation nonetheless.

Some adults might be able to pressure a child into riding the bicycle without a helmet. So what? Does that mean you now think everyone who gives a child a bicycle must be publically castrated and shot for their crimes against children? I don’t think so.

More subtle forms of rape like manipulation or blackmail still fall under rape, so they’re no reason to have an age of consent, rape is already banned.

Pedophobes seem to be scared that even though rape is already illegal, children would still be manipulated and blackmailed into sex…but if someone manipulates a child or an adult into having sex by giving the child false information about something, lying to the child/minor to get them to have sex with you, that still falls under rape, so that doesn’t explain why we need an age of consent for that, rape is already perfectly illegal.

In conclusion, I think sex at a young age can sometimes result in harm, but doesn’t have to. Banning it is also guaranteed to cause a lot of harm, so the best thing we can do is to make it safer by social acceptance and regulate it, similar to topics like drug use and prostitution, where harm can be involved, but it’s not inherent to the act, so just banning it for everyone would be unfair, it’s better to make it safer by social acceptance.

Teach children about contraception and safe sex early on, and hammer the idea into people’s heads that they ought to respect a child’s autonomy, unless they can actually legitimately demonstrate that a child is harming themselves by doing a given thing. You can still have the right to give them a vaccination if it’s truly necessary to prevent a greater harm, sure, but you’re not entitled to hug an unwilling child, you’re not entitled to force a child to play the guitar instead of the violin just because it suits your personal preferences more.

If you question it a little, you’ll see that it is frequently the pedophobes who are abusive, and that is what is stopping them from being reasonable about the topic of sex in childhood. It’s exactly the most anti-pedophilia conservatives, puritan bigots who think they have the right to force a child to hug grandma, the child has no right to refuse what the slave owners want, the child only can’t be abused sexually, that’s the only way you can’t abuse a child. Fuck it, even if the child actually wants to hump a pedophile’s leg, it doesn’t matter, it’s still wrong, but forcing the child to do other things that are not even necessary to prevent a greater harm to the child in question is perfectly acceptable, don’t respect children’s autonomy to any degree.

Another ulterior motive that some men have might also be that they don’t actually want rape to be illegal, perhaps they use lies and manipulation to get laid with girls over the age of consent, but if it were actually more about rape rather than age, then you couldn’t do that, you wouldn’t be allowed to tell an 18 year old girl lies in order to get into her pants either, so then they just want an age of consent to protect their younger sisters for a while until they’re hopefully old enough to not fall for any tricks rather than to truly insist that non-consensual sex be illegal.

If you promise a 14 year old girl a relationship in return for anal sex, it’s wrong, if some 18 year old girl is dumb enough to fall for it, you did a good job, her fault she fell for it. All sex must be rape, defiling a girl’s ”innocence” and all we can do is protect our younger sisters from that as long as possible because sex has to be about manipulation…I’m sure if it were up to some men, they would simply only make it illegal to have sex with their female family members and that’s it.

I think ”we have to draw a line somewhere” is also just an excuse violent bigots are using to hide their bigotry.

If people really just thought we had to draw a line somewhere, so it’s really unfortunate that a 30 year old is being arrested for fucking a willing 15 year old as a safety measure to ensure that no one manipulates 15 year olds into sex when they don’t want to, they wouldn’t be nearly as outraged about it as they are right now.

Why are they always foaming at the mouth then, regardless of whether or not the child/minor wanted to have sex? Either way, you always see comments from them like:

”ALL PEDOS MUST BE KILLED!!! NO CURE FOR THIS PERVERSION!!!”
”CUT THEIR DICKS OFF NOW!!!!!!!!!!! SUPPORT PEDO GENOCIDE!!!!!”
”I HOPE YOU GO TO JAIL AND GET ASSRAPED BY A NIGGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
”THERE’S NO EXCUSE! A 15 YEAR OLD CAN NEVER CONSENT!!!!!’

And other such pleasantries. If it’s so crystal clear that this idea of an age of consent just exists to deter a few bad people from doing bad things, why are people so outraged when they are perfectly rational enough to admit that sometimes sex between minors and adults is voluntary, even when you talk about it to them in private sometimes?

I think the answer is clear, they are living in a delusional disney fantasy world where children are supposed to be asexual, and they want to force anyone under the holy age to fit this role of being completely asexual. The idea of your child being sexual is icky, similar to how children also find the idea of their parents being sexual icky, but they don’t have the same amount of power to destroy their parents sexual lives on a whim.

This is clearly revealed in certain arguments the pedophobes make, like the argument about power imbalance. An adult has authority and power over a minor, so if they have sex, it’s abuse of power.

You only need to put this in any other context to see what a failure this argument is: a child voluntarily does garden work for extra pocket money for a parent who has power over them, they could force the child by grounding them if they don’t do the garden work, that is true.

But so what? The child clearly did it voluntarily, so power has not been abused. Same is possible for sex too, a minor could be pressured to have sex by a teacher if they threaten the minor with a worse math grade, but the minor could also just voluntarily have sex with the teacher in spite of the teacher’s power over them. Just because I own a gun and thus have power over you, that doesn’t mean I raped you if you had sex with me…as long as I didn’t use the gun to pressure you and you wanted to have sex with me regardless of my gun.

Power difference does not equal power abuse, pedophobes only assume this in the sexual context, because they likely already made another false assumption – which is that children are fundamentally asexual, so the only reason why a minor would have sex with their teacher is because they have been manipulated into being sexual by some evil pedominati propagandist, because obviously what everyone under 18 really wants is sit in a sandbox and play with barbie dolls, and then this evil pedo whipped out his dick and my daughter thought it was candy and accidentally put it in her mouth!!!!! – in delusional pedophobe disney fantasy land.

So I don’t believe this line drawing argument for a second, religious idiots and sex negative feminists legitimately act as though they believe even a person one second under their holy age is too stupid to tell the difference between cock and candy, they are living in a delusional fantasy world.

Does a society have the right to make a harmless act into a harmful one?

A common disagreement in the discussion about sex in childhood/youth is intrinsic vs. extrinsic harm. Some things are intrinsically harmful, in and of itself harmful, e.g. someone sticking a knife in your eye when you clearly don’t want that, we could argue that is always harmful.

But some things are only extrinsically harmful, e.g. a girl wears a skimpy dress and gets raped, this doesn’t prove that wearing a skimpy dress is in and of itself results in harm. Someone instigated harm in response to it, but it doesn’t in and of itself always result in harm.

Those with philosophical positions accepting of sexual relationships between children/minors and adults generally make the point that sex in childhood/youth is not intrinsically harmful, what can be harmful is when someone is manipulated, blackmailed, forced into sex regardless of age, in which case the coercion is the real harm, not the child sex itself obviously.

Or when society has an overtly harmful, negative reaction to a completely voluntary sex act that was intrinsically harmless, but then society made it extrinsically harmful by reacting in this hysterical fashion, harm caused by social stigma, the child/minor enjoyed the sexual encounter but was shocked to find out how society feels about it.

Those opposed to all such relationships often have an intuition that all such relations are harmful because children and minors are fundamentally asexual (or ”innocent”, whatever that means, sex supposedly makes you guilty) and would never have sex unless someone forced them to, or they believe that for some reason even if some want it, ”we just have to draw a line somewhere” and not even try to distinguish between the harmful and harmless cases in a more detailed manner in court.

Even when you point out to these people that in case a minor simply wanted to have sex with an older person, they weren’t manipulated, it didn’t result in any harm to them, except the negative reaction from society, some of them would still say ”but there are still social consequences to this that the child cannot comprehend yet!” although there is no evidence that these consequences are anything but self-caused, society’s fault and nothing else.

Basically blaming the victim, appealing to a self-created consequence, just like a rapist ironically. Even if dressing like a whore isn’t harmful, who cares? Once I rape you, you’re still harmed, so that proves dressing like a whore is harmful.

Even if having sex with a child/minor isn’t intrinsically harmful, who cares? Once we send you to jail and socially ostracize you for it, you and the minor (by extension) are still harmed by our hysteria, so that proves that sex at a young age is harmful, because we harm you for it.

Which raises the question: does a society have the right to make a perfectly harmless act into a harmful one by having an overtly negative, violent reaction to it?

It doesn’t have to be sex, we could pick any other subject for demonization and public hysteria and we would have the same argument, anything can be made extrinsically harmful.

Let’s just say as an example to test for consistency, we had a society that didn’t demonize children receiving orgasms, but children eating broccoli, both can be perfectly healthy if someone is not overtly averse to receiving either.

This society does believes that giving a child broccoli is always child abuse, automatically it is assumed that when a child eats broccoli, it can never be anything but harmful, it must have involved force and coercion – innocent children should not be eating broccoli. Period, end of discussion, if you question this, you’re one of these disgusting assholes who forces children to eat broccoli at knifepoint as well.

If a child finds out that they might like green vegetables by having eaten another one first (similar to how some children find out they would like to have sex by discovering masturbation and porn), and then they voluntarily receive broccoli from an adult, society has an overtly negative reaction to it:

The adult is socially ostracized, sent to jail.

Everyone is hysterically screeching at the child, asking them about their abuse.

People make jokes in front of the child how this evil abuser is now hopefully going to get repeatedly assraped in prison. Don’t drop the soap you piece of shit, HAHA, if you give kids broccoli you get raped in jail, so therefore, broccoli is unhealthy, it’s basic logic!

The child repeatedly hears that they now ”lost their innocence”, there’s something indescribably magical about never having eaten broccoli under a certain age, and if you did it before, you ruined your ”innocence” for life, now you are guilty! Oh no! What a travesty!

If the child doesn’t admit how horribly abused they were, everyone will assume they are completely mentally defective and just don’t understand how horribly abused they were, so the therapists won’t stop harassing the child, they become a social outcast, the weird victim of broccoli who doesn’t even admit they were victimized, how outragous! The evil broccoli pervert certainly manipulated this child!

After a while, this takes a toll on the child, the child feels confused and bad about it.

Society reaches the inescapable conclusion:

Broccoli is bad and unhealthy for children, it’s obvious!

Most humans are socially imitative creatures who don’t have it in them to tell all of society to go fuck itself, so what does the child do? The child grows up to parrot the lies that have been imposed on them by the anti-broccoli cult, the child grows up to associate the negative feelings that were really caused by society with the person who gave them broccoli, and grow to resent that person, when really it would be more reasonable to direct that hatred at society.

Therapists and psychologists who aren’t really deep thinkers but just social status quo enforcers who have similarly just been socially indoctrinated into thinking broccoli is the devil now conduct a study in which people like this, who have eaten broccoli as children partake, even people who did not voluntarily eat it, but have been forced to at knifepoint (which is the same in society’s eyes anyway, since children can NEVER consent to broccoli! NEVER!).

They reach the conclusion that people who have eaten broccoli as children indeed often times grow up to feel very bad. See, this settles the debate, broccoli is bad. A perfect post hoc fallacy, is it not?

Child eats broccoli, child is traumatized at some point after, this proves broccoli traumatizes children.

A happened, then B happened, therefore, A directly caused B. The child left the house, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, leaving your house causes you to get wet, even when it does not rain outside. Ironclad reasoning right there.

Should this society really have the right to insist on their stupid taboo and claim that they have demonstrated that eating broccoli causes harm to children? Or would anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their insanity think of them as primitive barbarians in desperate need of being educated (perhaps even forcibly) in order to change their ways?

I think the answer is obvious, you wouldn’t accept this type of picking a subject and making it into a taboo in any other context unless it were actually legitimately proven to be harmful, so it’s logically inconsistent and hypocritical when you do so when it comes to child sexuality.

I’m sure if they observed this behavior in a cult where something else would be demonized that isn’t sex, like broccoli, they would be perfectly able to observe the fact that these imbeciles have never come up with a reason as to why they think broccoli is inherently harmful to children and point out to them how society isn’t exactly making it easy for the child to enjoy eating broccoli.

”You fucking retard, YOU YOURSELF are creating this negative consequence, children don’t have to be harmed by broccoli, YOU HARM THEM by having this negative bigoted reaction to it! This is no better than saying homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, it’s harmful, just because you raise your children to bully children of homosexual couples, you’re clearly the asshole here!”.

But when it comes to seeing that they are the ones that create the harm in response to sexual relations between children/minors and adults, they completely fail to recognize that they are the monster and somehow manage to rationalize the harm that they inflict as harm done by the perfectly harmless orgasm.

”My 14 year old daughter voluntarily had sex with a 30 year old man, she got an orgasm and was overall satisfied, so I beat him to a bloody pulp in front of her! She started to scream in panic, see, this proves that orgasms are traumatizing unless you’re exactly the holy age, like 16, 17 or 18 that our religious cult has deemed to be the only correct one!”.

It’s idiotic, come up with a reason for why you think x is harmful, don’t just appeal the to the fact that people who engaged in x as children often grow up to feel traumatized and depressed in the confines of a society that does everything in their power to make children feel bad about x, whatever x may be.

If you don’t accept the ”evidence” of the anti-broccoli cult, then it’d be inconsistent for you to accept the ”evidence” pedophobic bigots lay out for how sex in childhood and youth is harmful, because they’re using the same method: lumping voluntary and in-voluntary sex together and ignoring social pressures and biases.

If an act is only harmful because society reacts badly to it, then the act isn’t really harmful, it’s society that is being harmful. So why not ban the harm caused by society rather than the act that it demonizes based on irrational grounds? Because they’re just irrational, so they just fail to see that they’re being irrational, that’s the most plausible answer here.

Real value vs. projected value.

Good and bad are real facts, not up to opinion. The reason why people think it is entirely relative whether or not something is good or bad is because different circumstances and objects produce different sensations in different subjects, so they end up falsely concluding that ”everyone just finds something different good or bad, it’s a matter of opinion”.

As in, person A experiences a negative sensation in response to almonds, because person A is allergic to almonds, person B experiences a negative sensation in response to peanuts, because person B is allergic to peanuts. So the value relativist says ”see, the person A thinks almonds are bad, person B thinks peanuts are bad, so what nut is good and bad is a matter of opinion”.

Wrong, almond is not good or bad, it’s a neutral object.

Peanut is not good or bad, it’s a neutral object.

What is negative is negative sensation, and in person A it’s caused by almonds, and in person B it’s caused by peanuts. So what is bad here? Very simple, negative sensation, nothing else. It’s not the almond or the peanut, it’s the sensation that is bad, just because it’s caused by different objects in different subjects, doesn’t mean that bad sensation is not objectively real.

Sometimes, two organisms die of different causes too, one of cancer and one of AIDS, that doesn’t mean that the answer to the question of ”did someone die?” is ”it’s just a matter of opinion”.

Sometimes, two organisms break their legs of different causes too, one by falling off a bicycle, one by falling off a mountain – but they both had a broken leg, that’s the same for both, it’s not up to personal interpretation just because the leg was broken by different circumstances.

This idea that we all just have different things that we find bad is a delusion, what is bad is always the same – bad sensation. You can feel bad and less bad, this function objectively exists in sentient organisms, it’s predetermined for you, you have no choice but to feel pain when someone attacks you with a chainsaw.

Then why is there so much disagreement over what is good and bad?

The reason why there are ”disagreements” in ethics is exactly because everyone ends up falsely detecting and identifying where harm is and where harm is not, but if everyone simply had a clear understanding that it is only harm itself which is harmful, then they wouldn’t have all these stupid supposed disagreements.

Different objects cause different sensations in different subjects, so the subjects end up falsely concluding that the object that brought them alleviation of suffering is the good, rather than the elevation of their sensation state from one negative to one less negative state.

For example, John experiences suffering reduction in response to the American flag, eliciting feelings of group membership and patriotism, John falsely ends up concluding that the American flag is now ”a good thing”, when obviously the American flag is just a neutral object, the real good was the elevation of his emotional state from one negative of feeling lonely and excluded to a less negative state.

Now John feels more empathy for the poor American flag being burned than a fully sentient chimpanzee being burned alive, because he illogically equates the American flag with his conscious experience of pleasure, so he concludes American flag=conscious being, if you burn the poor American flag you’re causing suffering to it!

Analyzing in detail all day what would best reduce suffering is more complicated of a task than simply generalizing and thinking that one holy rule like ”never break the law” saves everything.

And everyone is guilty of this to some degree, we can’t help but to some degree equate the object that brings us alleviation from our suffering with the alleviation of suffering, but it is vital to recognize that this is what prevents us from being perfect.

This type of intuitive, sloppy, lazy way of processing reality is exactly what leads to deontological ethics, where we start to stubbornly think that adhering to a given dogmatic rule is more important than preventing real life harm, because we stubbornly equate that one rule with the reduction of suffering and don’t want to go through the more complicated process of thinking what rule is appropriate for each and every situation that could possibly exist.

This could manifest in many different stereotypes:

The police officer who supports causing suffering to peaceful drug users because he observes that law is sometimes important to prevent suffering in society, maybe his sister got raped once and he saw that law mitigated against that suffering, the rapist got arrested, so now he subconsciously associates law with suffering prevention and harasses people for smoking weed and pissing against a tree because law=always good!

The irrational sex-negative feminist who has been sexually exploited by a man in a position of power over her once (maybe the sister of the police officer) and now she equates power with abuse and thinks no relationship where two parties have a different level of power is possible, it’s all rape, women are weaker so all sex is rape!

The libertarian who doesn’t think any rich person should have to pay taxes because they observe that being locked in a cage, being restricted causes suffering and misery, so they end up completely ignoring that never restricting anyone’s liberties and forcing them to share resources can also lead to extreme suffering and misery.

The corrupt con artist who thinks money is all that matters, because money can buy resources that can be used to alleviate suffering. But if money could not buy you resources to alleviate suffering, why would money be important? It wouldn’t be, so money itself isn’t important, suffering alleviation is the real good, and chances are their scams cause more suffering than they alleviate overall.

It’s a projection, the subject fails to comprehend that good and bad are just emotions, not located in objects around them. You suffer appetite, so you eat a piece of chocolate, the piece of chocolate alleviates your suffering – so if you really lack the critical thinking skills, I just need to give everyone in the concentration camp getting a tortured a piece of chocolate and you conclude ”what a wonderful place to be! They look happy! Piece of chocolate=good!”.

Pro-lifers are an excellent example of this, this type of thinking is exactly why people are so opposed to the idea of antinatalism. By stopping the production of all conscious life, we could end all suffering, we would also take away every moment of joy and happiness, but that’d be irrelevant, because people that are never born they don’t feel the need to acquire joy and happiness, just like if you’re not addicted to heroin, heroin has no value anymore.

Non-existers don’t need pleasure to avoid suffering, only disadvantaged existers need to obtain pleasure to avoid suffering, before I was born I didn’t enjoy a piece of chocolate but I also didn’t feel any appetite for the piece of chocolate.

But many don’t get this, because intuitively, we notice that when they don’t get a pleasurable experience, they suffer from not having that pleasurable experience, so they chase it, that is the nature of our sentient experience.

And they know that in order to have pleasurable experiences, one must be alive too. So they want humans to be alive, because in life they can chase pleasure in order to avoid suffering, suffering that did not exist before the life was created. It’s good to extinguish an already burning house, it’s not good to set it on fire for the good of extinguishing it again, that’s not a profit.

It’s like an immature child only seeing ”extinguishing fire=good” and now wants to play fireman, so they set the house on fire, so that then they can extinguish that fire again. Make a need/desire, so that then you can fulfill that need/desire, create suffering in order to avoid it.

In all of this, they simply fail to see that if we simply weren’t alive, then we wouldn’t need pleasurable experiences to avoid suffering anymore, you only need to achieve pleasurable experiences to avoid suffering once you’re already alive, and they are projecting their experience as a sentient organism onto the ”experience” of the fetus who literally has no experience whatsoever because it isn’t conscious.

It’s good to extinguish an already burning house, it’s not good to set it on fire for the good of extinguishing it again, that’s not a profit. But this applies in many areas of ethics, all deontology I would argue is tainted by this type of irrational projection.

We identify certain things as important, because they help us to or we’re under the delusion that they’ll help us to alleviate some form of suffering, that is the real underlying goal, but if we’re not constantly careful, we start to falsely identify the object itself as good and forget that it’s about the emotions, the piece of chocolate you just ate isn’t good, what is good is that it alleviated your suffering, you went from a deprived, negative to a less deprived, less negative state.

It’s impossible to even find a different example of this phemonenon, because every endeavor can be traced back to suffering avoidance. So for example, people value money, but I could argue that they don’t really value the money, they value obtaining certain resources with it, the money is only an instrument, so them thinking ”money is good in and of itself” is wrong, an identification error.

But ultimately, neither are the resources that are bought with it good in and of itself, we also only try to obtain those resources to alleviate our suffering, so that’s really all it ever boils down to – and humans constantly lose track of that and falsely start to identify the object that is used to achieve the end goal as the real good, when the real good is the end goal that they just lost track of.

Like the police officer thinking law is good because it prevents harm, but then causing more harm in the name of the law. Or the democrat thinking giving everyone a right to vote is good because it prevents the harm of dictatorship, but then causing more harm as a majority voting for a violent dictator. Or the corrupt thief thinking money is good because it prevents unfulfilled desires, but causing much more desires to be unfulfilled in the process of making the money.

Sensation=intrinsic value.

Everything else we proclaim to value=extrinsically valuable to improving intrinsic value.

On toughening up children.

I argue that the existence of conscious life itself in the universe leads to unnecessary suffering, it is an unprofitable game.

Some people dispute this and say suffering can be good too, because sometimes in life, you are forced to endure one suffering to avoid even more of it in the future, so you take a painful injection to avoid a worse illness, or tolerate a painfully boring school life to avoid even more painful homelessness, or endure a painfully draining traffic jam to avoid the more painful boredom of never arriving at the amusement park.

But in and of itself, suffering is bad, that’s the point here. If you had the opportunity to just snap your fingers and become immune to all illness, you’d do that.

If I only rammed a needle into your arm as hard as possible for no benefit in return, you would decline the offer.

Masochists are not a fair counterexamples, because they are getting a benefit in return for the pain they cause themselves, sexual frustration is a form of suffering, and if the masochist wouldn’t already experience such tension, they wouldn’t inflict the pain on themselves to relieve that possibly more torturous long term frustration.

It is fair to say that before consciousness ever existed, there was never any suffering going on in the world that needed consciousness to exist in order to alleviate it, so it is irrational to argue that it’s good that consciousness started to exist.

The sea was not crying over not having a conscious fish swim in it, consciousness solved no problem, it is the problem.

Before an organism is conscious, it doesn’t need to feel good to avoid feeling bad, but once it’s conscious, it needs to constantly chase good to avoid feeling bad. So all pleasures of existence are unnecessary to avoid suffering, suffering is avoided just perfectly by not existing, by obtaining any pleasure once you’re alive you’re only preventing a state that would otherwise be suffering, compensating for a deficit.

You don’t eat, you hunger. You don’t drink, you thirst. You don’t defecate, you constipate. At best you get back to a more neutral, un-harmed state of not experiencing unfulfilled need, want, desire, in the worst case scenario, your needs, wants, desires remain unfulfilled for life. A starving third world person and a first world person are both tormented by hunger, it’s just that one always gets a painkiller just in time before it becomes too bad.

Suffering apologists who defend the continued production of suffering-capable life will sometimes also argue that deliberately inflicting suffering onto children, beyond just producing them to begin with, is necessary and good to do.

They need to be ”toughened up”, they’ll say things like my parents beat me when I was a kid and it made me a better person, I was an entitled brat who had to learn I don’t always get what I want, I got bullied in school and it made me stronger.

And this, in their delusional state of mind (where they already unfairly presupposed that the existence of consciousness is absolutely necessary and vital) may seem sensible to them, but if you take into account what I just explained this starts to seem more absurd.

It is true that once a child exists, the child will need to learn how to be disciplined and stronger in order to avoid suffering, unmet needs, wants, desires associated with being lazy and weak in the future. As in, little billy needs to learn how to deal with bullying at school, so then he knows how to handle adversity later on and get a good job to avoid being a loser in the life game, and be able to meet his needs, wants, desires.

Though questionable if beating up children and bullying them will achieve that, you can argue that once kids exist they need to learn to be disciplined to avoid certain forms of even worse discomfort and suffering in their future lives. Little billy needs to learn he can’t get any toy he wants at the store, or later on he’s going to rape a bitch – whatever example you want to use.

But the problem with all of this is that the need itself did not need to exist.

As a non-conscious fetus, little billy did not feel the need, want, desire to become conscious in the future. His parents created the need, want, desire to do certain things in him when they didn’t abort him before the brain started to fire up consciousness.

Now that the organism is conscious, it will have to learn how to struggle and fight, be toughened up in order to deal with even worse adversity later on in life, not be totally crushed by it and then become one of the loser organisms who’ll fail to fulfill their needs, wants, desires.

So the parents really created that problem in the first place.

Let’s say I abduct you into my basement, and then I initiate some sort of sadistic game, let’s call it torture and the carrot. The rule is that in order to obtain food for further survival, the carrot, you have to saw your entire left hand off.

Once I have put you into this situation, I argue that I can totally justify cutting your little finger off first. Why? Well, because it will get you used to pain, and later on you will have get used to pain, because you’ll have to saw your entire left hand off in order to obtain the carrot.

So see, I’m actually doing you a favor by sawing only your little finger off first, because that’ll get you used to pain, which is a necessity (that I have created) for obtaining the carrot later on, I’m just toughening you up to achieve the task I imposed on you.

See how this would be completely unfair?

It would be completely unfair because I’m the one at fault for you being in need of the carrot in the first place. I was the one who abducted you into his basement to play this sadistic torture and carrot game, before I made your survival forcibly dependent on that carrot, you did not need to saw your left hand off in order to survive.

And this is the problem with toughening up children in general as well.

In life there’s need, but prior to the needer existing, there is no need. So little billy is faced with this unfairness of not getting a new toy at the store, but this is necessary in order for him to learn that sometimes, you cannot get whatever you want, we don’t want him to become a rapist in the future who’ll throw a tantrum when a girl refuses to have sex with him.

But why will little billy develop the desire to have sex? Obviously only because his parents initiated his consciousness, if they simply aborted him before the brain started create needs, wants, desires, he would not be in this situation right now where he has to endure one discomfort in the present to avoid even worse discomfort in the future, just like in my torture and carrot example, you wouldn’t need the carrot if I didn’t abduct you into my basement.

Enduring the discomfort only became a necessity when I created the chance of even worse future discomfort. If little billy isn’t created in the first place, he won’t be dependent on money in the future, so he won’t need to learn how to deal with hardship earlier on to learn how to deal with it later on in order to not become unsuccesful, by aborting the child before it becomes conscious, you eradicate all its potential needs, wants, desires for future success.

So when parents make this point that children need to be toughened up, they are missing the real point.

They created the necessity to avoid harm, i.e create need, want, desire by creating a conscious organism, and now that organism needs to learn to become strong to avoid harm that is associated with being weak in the future.

If you’re halfway reasonable, you would think of me as an asshole for doing this in any other context, creating a dependency like that.

Like me abducting someone, locking them in a basement and making their survival dependent on cutting their left hand off – now they need to be toughened up by having their little finger cut off, so that then they can later on more easily chop the entire hand off or they won’t survive under the conditions which I have set.

You’d think I’m an asshole if I were a violent pimp who made someone addicted to heroin and crack in their sleep, then forced them to work for me as a whore, if I then made the argument that me treating them roughly is really ok, because later on all the customers will be even rougher, so they need to get used to it in order to obtain their new heroin fix after I made them dependent on the heroin in the first place, so I’m actually being completely benevolent here.

You’d think I’m asshole if I threw a child in the water again and again and make it fear it might drown, just because later on I wanted them to become a professional swimmer, so they need to be toughened up and get really passionate about trying to swim, instill some torturous fears into them to be a winner in the future.

Once threat of worse future discomfort is created, it can be necessary to endure a certain amount of discomfort to avoid even worse future discomfort, but this does not give a justification for why the threat of worse future discomfort has to be created in the first place.

Sometimes in life, we have to endure one suffering to get a pleasure, relief of suffering later on, the painful experiences that make us strong, immune to suffering associated with weakness in the future.

But that pleasure is only a necessity if the threat of suffering from not having it is created, and parents create that threat of suffering whenever they don’t abort a child before it becomes conscious in the first place, they instilled the threat of desire and deprivation by creating a new consciousness.

You might say it was good that your father beat you up as a kid because that made you tougher, so later on you succeeded in life and got more money and pussy, but the only reason why you needed to succeed in life in order to avoid suffering from being a loser is because your father created you in the first place, thus creating the opportunity for loss, if he just punched your mom in the stomach instead, you wouldn’t have been trapped in some kind of pre-birth torture chamber where you prayed to be released onto the earth so you can finally get some money and pussy.

If little billy is never created, he won’t be trapped in the unborn purgatory, feeling the desire to obtain desires to fulfill in order to avoid being tormented by them, thinking ”I wish I would be exposed to negative future consequences, so that then I can be toughened up in order to deal with them accordingly and lead a succesful life”.

Non-existers have no need to be succesful, so in the grand scheme of things, all child up-toughening is unfair abuse, it happens for an illegitimate, unnecessary purpose of giving the child some form of pleasurable future experience that they didn’t need before you created the need for it by creating the child in the first place.